A Letter From Karl Rove.

From: The Subconscious of Karl Rove
To: Fellow Republicans

"Christian" Gentlemen and Ladies,

Two words: "Fear Not." The Republican party is NOT in its last throes (ha, ha, remember that gem?) and our future is bright. Certainly not our near future (there will be no Republican President in 08') but our long-term future, beginning four years later. So relax.

Admittedly, the war in Iraq did not turn out at ALL like we planned. You must admit that four years ago it was brilliant that we claimed Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat, but not until after 9/11, when Americans were content to blame any people who had light-brown skin and names typically containing at least three "K's." Even though Iraq had as much to do with 9/11 as Peru, the morons actually fell for it. Ah, good memories.

But alas, it didn't work out and plenty of naysayers now claim we are in trouble. They say this Iraqi debacle will set back our agenda for decades. WRONG! Let me explain. In twenty months a Democrat will take over the White House (yawn). It will be that negro fellow, the lesbian Clinton, or that tree hugger, Al Gore. In order to become President, the eventual winner must guarantee a quick pull-out from Iraq as soon as he/she takes office. All we have to do is keep insisting that victory in Iraq must not come with a deadline and it will fall on the Democrats to end this war.

Well, my wealthy friends, at THIS point we can blame them for any terrorism that may follow (for decades!) by simply shrugging and saying, "The Democrats were the ones who insisted on cutting and running." And you know what?! A large percentage of the country (the same folks who actually believed the entire "uranium from Africa" fantasy) will actually believe it! Remember, they quickly forgot that 9/11 happened on our watch, months after we were told that Bin Laden was planning an imminent attack on American soil and we did nothing. So for now, even though it has been clear for three years that America has no chance of prevailing in Iraq, we will allow Americans to continue dying in a country that never threatened us. It's for the greater good. But remember, before mourning these thousands of dead Americans, that none of OUR sons and daughters need to sacrifice in any way. And the sacrifice of those who are fighting for the U.S.? Consider it as their opportunity to assure the success of the Republican party once again in 2012. A noble sacrifice, indeed.

Also, as far as "losing in Iraq," let's not be so hasty with our assessments. American contractors in Iraq (usually supporting Republican politicians) have raked in hundreds of millions of dollars on (ha, ha) no-bid contracts. You have no idea how much money Dick Cheney has made over the past four years through Halliburton! Do you think he might share that loot with Republicans in the future? Does a liberal serve valiantly in Vietnam and get effectively smeared by those who had 7 deferments or went AWOL from the National Guard? Man, I love that one. Hard to declare a war a loss when you profit like this, am I RIGHT?!

So we lay low for four years, blame the Democrats for not having the stomach for war and prepare for the next election. But we will not be docile on conservative issues. After all, the Supreme Court just passed a law forbidding third-trimester abortions (watch out Roe -v- Wade!). Most Americans actually believed us when we implied that these abortions are essentially demanded by slutty hippie women who decide, after eight months of pregnancy, to yank out the squirming, perfectly healthy babies from their wombs. Ha, ha. So few people realize that the vast, vast majority of these babies are horrifically damaged. Brains growing outside of skulls, massive skeletal disorders, and future lives of unimaginable suffering. I imagine if America knew that third-trimester abortions are performed almost exclusively after gut-wrenching personal decisions by anguished parents who want to end immense suffering, they would NEVER support our agenda. But thankfully they are not educated.

And remember, Republicans, education is our worst enemy. Keep pushing that Bible stuff (and other fairy tales) on the kids. The younger the better. The earth is 6,000 years old? You betcha!' Homosexuality is a sin? Oh yeah, but don't mention gluttony! Seventy percent of the Earth is going to hell because they don't accept Jesus? Sure, why not? People in red states will believe anything! After all, they actually believe in ANGELS!

So chin up, Republicans. We may have lost the (Iraq) battle but we will win the war. The Dems will once again be labeled cowards whenever they pull the troops out, women's bodies will (more and more) be regulated by Republican men, and the cash (the sweet, sweet cash) will continue to roll in.

Life is still good.



-K. Rove

Selective Prejudice.

People reading my formed words (with a special shout-out to "Abbe"),

Well, it's been a couple of weeks since the VA Tech massacre and I've heard plenty of blame to go around. I've heard NRA-types and pacifists shrieking at each other. I've heard psychologists (aka "crazy hippies") preaching the importance of inclusion. And I've seen meat-eaters and vegans engaged in ultimate fighting while Metallica blares from the speakers. Admittedly, this one confuses me.

Surprisingly, I have come to (essentially) agree with the NRA when they say, "Guns don't kill people, insane NRA members kill people." As Michael Moore pointed out in his brilliant documentary "Bowling For Columbine," Canada has far more guns per capita than we do but far, far fewer murders per capita. A more civilized, empathetic culture? Yep. Guns are illegal in Japan and there are virtually zero murders. But is it really so hard for a determined Japanese citizen to get a gun? Doubt it. Canada (many guns) and Japan (few guns) both have a tiny fraction of the murders we endure in the U.S. because, well, they CHOOSE not to kill each other when they get grouchy. It is American society, not guns, that causes this nightmare. I am not particularly knowledgeable on WHY we are such a violent people but I think it has something to do with the "We're number one, greatest country on earth" bullshit we stuff into our kids' heads at an early age. The same age as Kim Jong Il convinces the North Korean kids that he is God. I would welcome any thoughts from readers.

Many people have argued that we need to make campuses safer. That certainly is worth exploring. But how much safer is debatable. Nobody supports the idea of huge walls around campuses and iris scans at every door. Society as a whole agrees that risk, safety, and freedom must be balanced. Some would say (and conservatives supporting Bush have suggested it) that greater safety is what's most important. Worried about phone taps? Why, if you have nothing to hide? Opposed to subway searches? Don't pack a bomb! Of course both sides have valid arguments. For instance, few liberals argue against the legality of suitcase searches at airports. It's an invasion of privacy, sure, but acceptable to (almost) all. When Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither," he probably didn't consider the emegence of Al Qaeda but he very well may have envisioned the actions of our current administration. Gray areas, my friends. By the way, is that the way you spell "gray?" "Grey?" Who cares.

But those who ALWAYS argue on the side of safety are ALWAYS fools. "If it makes us safer, do it!" is just nonsense. I ask these mouth-breathers why we then simply don't reduce the national speed limit to 22 miles per hour and save tens of thousands of lives. They then seem to be in a hurry to get somewhere and the discussion abruptly ends. Compromise, compromise. Safety and freedom. So most people (probably most at VA Tech) would prefer that college campuses remain open and accessible and everyone (just like interstate drivers) will TAKE THEIR CHANCES! It's part of a free society, an acceptable risk if you will.

Changing gears. Many people have been blaming rappers for promoting violence and disrespect for authority. Guys like Bill ("Peabody Award") O'Reilly routinely blame rap artists like 50 Cent and Ludacris for fomenting violence. Yet they never blame (white) folks like Martin Scorcese, Brian DePalma, and Vin Diesel. "What the HELL are you talking about?!" you may roar, Jumbo Snickers bar in hand. Well Scorcese and DePalma routinely direct vicious movies and Vin Diesel (often) portrays violent characters. But most of us (correctly) absolve them of any blame for society's ills because they are just portraying characters. It's art, good or bad. And yet when a guy like Ludacris leads a crime-free life and only portrays a vicious character to sell CD's, racists like O'Reilly are quick to assign blame. Inconsistent, faulty logic (from the bloated phone pervert).

But blaming any rappers, directors, actors or producers of violent video games is ludicrous (tee hee!) in itself. In Asian cultures (remember, no gun violence) their citizens absorb far more violence and pornography than we do and (voila!) there's no corresponding criminal impact on the streets to speak of. It's so easy to lay blame and lump others together in groups, but where's the supporting evidence? I encounter countless Americans who support this (illegal) Iraq war because of what "they" did to us on 9/11. When I ask who "they" are, conservatives (consistently) answer "the Muslims." And yet nobody blamed "Christians" for what Timothy McVeigh or David Koresh did. Scream all you will about Janet Reno but SHE did not ignite the Branch Davidian house. Crazy Christians did. We never seem to lump ourselves together in a "negative group" if part of our group does wrong.

Being too lazy to edit, I look back at this stream-of-consciousness blog entry and realize I was all over the map. But on another map, several hundred Iraqi citizens died on the same day as 32 students at VA Tech. And I did not hear the President say one word about this tragic loss of life beyond our borders. Clearly it's because "those people" don't count as much as "our people." Because they're not part of "our group." Inexcusable.


American Asshole.

-pcr

Disgraceful.

Americans,

In case you're living in a cable-free cave, by now you've learned of the stunning tragedy at Virginia Tech University. Thirty-three people were slaughtered by a student (Cho Seung-Hui) who apparently did not foresee a bright future for himself and decided to eliminate that possibility for as many others as made possible by semi-automatic weaponry and a lust for blood. This young man was responsible for one of the worst acts of mass murder in U.S. history.

Unless of course you include George Bush and his mischievous pack of scamps. "HOW DARE YOU!!!" you may thunder. Oh, I dare, I dare. You may bristle, "This was enough of a tragedy without it being made into a wider argument against the important war on terror!" Perhaps we should concentrate on one topic at a time, out of respect for the families of the victims in Blacksburg, VA? I disagree strongly. In fact, I believe what I am now writing shows the utmost respect for the grieving families of the lost students and teachers.

The day after the tragedy, on April 17, George Bush flew to VA to preside over the healing "convocation" at the university. He expressed the powerful words written (in their entirety) by his skilled writers and scrunched up his face in a variety of ways indicating sorrow, concern, and (of course) closure & hope. It was a moving presentation, one that no doubt brought comfort to thousands (millions!) of citizens watching. Our President was "there" for the nation when it needed him most. Kudos, Commander in Chief!

But was anyone else troubled that the very man leading the ceremony (G.W. Bush) is responsible for far more unnecessary murders than the grumpy Mr. Seung-Hui? Is anyone else deeply concerned with this ghastly irony?! Let's recall the old adage, "The buck stops here." It is consistently used (in business and politics alike) to suggest that the "boss" is ultimately responsible for the activities of those "beneath him." Yep, that sounds pretty fair, pretty "American," pretty groovy. Deep breath now...

George Bush (along with Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, Jon Edwards, John McCain, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, and a host of others) pursued a war in a country that never threatened us! No evidence of weapons of mass destruction, no evidence of any link to terrorists (who threatened America), no evidence at all that Iraq was more of a threat than Finland, New Zealand, or the skeletal remains of famed racehorse Secretariat. No threat. They lied. But ultimately it was Bush's decision to go to war. "The buck stops here."

You may counter, "But at least they wanted to bring democracy to a country that was being tormented by a vicious dictator!" Um-hum. It is always the goal of America to bring freedom to any country inhabited by repressed, anguished citizens. We can all recall with great pride the bang-up job America has done bringing freedom to Rwanda and The Sudan. Such happy, free people, leading lives of joy in their (oil-free) lands! Darfur is now dreamy. God bless America.

Four years after the start of the war we have 3,300 dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi citizens. All unnecessary, each and every death. "But Saddam was murdering his citizens!" you may squeal as I prepare to give you yet another smackdown.....More Iraqis have been killed by George Bush's lethal foolishness in the past four years than in the previous 30 years (under Saddam) combined! You may slice it and dice it any way you wish, but George Bush ("buck stops here") has murdered more innocents than anyone in the history of our country (with the possible exceptions of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon). George W. Bush. Mass murderer.

.....And after the tragedy at VA Tech HE was the keynote speaker at the convocation there on April 17, 2007. He noted how tragic it was that thirty-three innocents died. Let the healing begin.

Fuck that.



-pcr

Free(ish) Speech

Hey, Americans!

Rosie O'Donnell speaks her mind. Don Imus does too. Ditto for Rush Limbaugh. All of them have said some pretty explosive things. Rosie implied 9/11 was an inside job. Bold assertion. Imus called some black women "nappy-headed hos." Pretty aggressive stuff. Rush suggested Michael J. Fox was faking Parkinson's symptoms. Rather strong words.

Many people want them to be fired for what they said. These people, all of them, are unpatriotic, plain and simple. Free speech means we can say anything we want and each and every one of us should celebrate and defend this right. We need not celebrate any of the words we disagree with but it is our responsibility as Americans to protect the rights of others to use them. Why is this not yet clear?

If we do not like what people in the media say we can simply turn the channel. Condemn their positions, sure, but when you imply they should not be allowed a platform to voice their views then you are against free speech. Plain and simple. The above "offenders" are paid to generate revenue. They are huge earners. Thus, they do their job. If you want to punish the employers who employ them, that is your right and, again, you may change the channel. If enough people do that the "offenders" will be fired. Okay? But do NOT imply that people are "out of line" who disagree with (or outrage) you. The whole value of free speech is that there ARE NO LINES! Zero. Once any lines are drawn we are instantly on a slippery slope away from freedom. For this reason, many Americans (including me) are outraged at the legal domestic spying instituted by George Bush. Lines drawn where there were none before. Freedom compromised, America compromised. To hell with the lines!

Now, let's study some of the fine citizens calling for the dismissal of Don Imus. Reverend Jesse Jackson claims there is no room for a racist on the radio and Imus should therefore lose his job. A bold, moral assertion from a man of God? Well, in 1984 the good Reverend, in a Washington Post interview, referred to New York City as "Hymietown." Anti-Semitic. In the 1990's he was exposed as an adulterer. He's a REVEREND! A moral beacon! Plenty of folks, for good reason, condemned his actions and words at the time but I did not hear many claims that Jackson should no longer be allowed to work! And that's the way it should be.

In 1987, Reverend Al Sharpton (who also wants Imus fired) insisted that teenager Tawana Brawley was raped by then-New York District Attorney Steven Pagones. The entire assertion by Ms. Brawley turned out to be a lie. Sharpton chose to never apologize for attacking Pagones. Morally bankrupt? You bet! Calls for his retirement? Virtually nil. As it should be. He has the RIGHT to say what he wishes and others have the right to contradict him. America. Rockets red glare and all that goofy bullshit.....

I have neither the endurance nor the stomach to detail the many lies spewed forth by Bill O'Reilly. Read Al Franken's nifty book, "Lies & The Lying Liars Who Tell Them" to explore this topic. As O'Reilly's executive producer, Andrea Mackis claimed (in 2004) that she was subjected to repeated instances of sexual harassment and explicit talk of phone sex, vibrators, and threesomes. Did O'Reilly really do that? Well, FOX paid Mackey millions so she would not expose her taped conversations with O'Reilly. And that was the end of that. Recently, O'Reilly has aggressively pushed for the firing of Rosie O'Donnell calling her a "wack job" who should not have a public forum. Okay then, Bill.

Another example of hypocritical nonsense: Several years ago, Christian Wal-Mart customers were offended that the stores carried a George Carlin book titled "When Will Jesus Pass The Pork Chops?" Everyone has a right to be offended. In fact, we have little control over our emotional reactions. But customers by the thousands in effect insisted that NO ONE should have the right to buy the book at Wal-Mart. Huh? And Wal-Mart pulled the (hysterical) books from each and every store. Mission accomplished by the Christians. It became clear to Wal-Mart that it was more profitable to limit free speech in this case than embrace it. Shame on those corporate pricks. And shame on the unpatriotic Christians who succeeded in suppressing the free speech of someone they disagreed with. They will be horrified to learn one day that George Carlin is in fact God and he will exact his fiendish revenge. Why do so many Americans claim they value freedom ("Greatest country on earth," "They hate us because we're free," etc.) but then demand that the voices of those they disagree with be silenced?

I wrote in an earlier post about The Dixie Chicks and Toby Keith. I was angered that southerners claimed that the women should "shut up and sing" while Toby's words (he is for the war) were embraced. Hollywood should apparently "shut up" unless it is Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston, etc. Come on now, red states, are you for free speech or not? If you're for it then simply walk away from those you disagree with. And don't buy their CDs.

Many are outraged that rappers in this country sing about violence, easy money, and material wealth but even those who condemn them do not claim that they have no right to sing about what they wish. As it should be. Since when does saying something "horrible" translate into not being allowed to say it?!

Feel free to condemn the words of those you disagree with but, for the love of God, defend their right to say it! Now, feel free to delete this piece.



-Paul "Paul" Rosa

Pope on a Rope

Happy Easter. Now please allow me to ruin it.

Well, Pope John Paul II is currently on the fast track to sainthood. The soft-spoken "Polish Pontiff" was an inspiration to millions and his strength while fighting Parkinson's Disease and numerous other ailments was truly inspirational.



In order to become a saint ("beatified"), the Catholic church requires proof that he caused a "medically unexplainable" healing. No doubt the church will indeed be convinced of his mysterious, special powers and we'll soon smile and say "Saint John Paul" as casually as we say "tuna melt" or "John McCain is a liar." And all will be well across the quickly-warming planet. But hold your horses, Johnny Rocket....

While the Pope certainly seemed like an all-around sweet guy (after all, he often kissed children and old folks on the forehead!), would it not be prudent to nevertheless look at his overall record in determining the measure of the man? Of course it would. Any reasonable person would retort, "Yes, Paul, it is fair to look at a fellow's overall life before deciding if he was a good man, let alone a saint." So, let's graduate to the meat-n-potatoes section of my essay. Lent me your ear, har-har-har-chortle!!

Pope John Paul II, over and over again, refused to grant Catholics the right to use birth control. Starving, destitute citizens in third-world countries would NEVER defy the Pope so they could not realize the "benefits" of birth control while enjoying one of life's great (free) pleasures. It is not uncommon to find Catholic women all over the globe with six or more children, none of which they can afford. Living in unimaginable squalor, their desperation can be traced directly to a stone-age belief system, a system that refuses to adjust to the realities of modern life in any way. And let's not forget that countless people died agonizing deaths from AIDS because the Pope proclaimed that birth control of any sort (including condoms) was wrong. Insane? You bet! The Pope, the LEADER of the Catholics, is directly responsible for the suffering of these millions. A saint? Hardly.

The Pope's stance on homosexuality was barbaric. He claimed that the Bible condemns homosexuality (simple as that) but never, for example, aggressively ostracized fat people. But isn't gluttony one of the seven deadly sins? He chose to act with cruel indifference to a group of people who hurt no one. Remember Governor George Wallace on the school-house steps, screaming that segregation must prevail? Nasty stuff, eh? What this Pope did was far worse. And those who oppose same-sex marriage are no different from those who oppose interracial marriage. It comes down to hate, regardless of how one hides the hate behind a religion.

Next, let's discuss his vicious, misogynistic attitude. For centuries, women have been prevented from becoming Catholic priests because, well, the Catholic church has a history of oppressing women. So when Pope John Paul II came along (1978) he had a chance to change the world. Like Martin Luther King, Jr., he had the opportunity to face the majority and demand justice. And he chose to do nothing, deciding again and again that women were not worthy. Vicious and prehistoric. Hardly the actions of a saint.

Anything else, Paul? Yep. For decades, hundreds of priests satisfied their lust by viciously raping countless numbers of trusting Catholic children. And what did the Catholic church do about these outrages? They moved these remorseless pedophiles from church to church, whenever the local complaints became too heated. There is ample evidence that the Cardinals and the Pope knew full well about these atrocities but, rather than expose the precious church's problems, they instead chose to allow their employees/monsters to continue destroying countless young lives with impunity. Allowed them unfettered access to the flesh of vulnerable children. Utterly decimated life after life after life while paying hush money to those who complained. So, if a Pope is the LEADER of the Catholic church, what happened to the old adage, "The buck stops here?" Never once did he personally take responsibility for the actions of his criminal "employees!" A saint? A monster is more like it. Any OTHER boss would have been fired in an instant. Criminal felony charges would then have been filed in short order. But soon this man will be a "saint." Wow.

Had enough? Me too. But let's not forget the Pope's barbaric stance against ALL stem-cell research. Further, he opposed Euthanasia, even for patients screaming in agony while enduring final-stage bone cancer.

And if all of the above isn't bad enough, the guy was a lousy dresser! Everyone from Yves St. Laurent to Halston begged the Pontiff to lose the "pistachio-nut hat" but, time after time, he refused to embrace fashion in any way. Dressed sloppily in loose-fitting sheets and gaudy jewelry, the dude was a visual trainwreck.

Finally, the Bible is clear when it states (in Matthew 19:16-21), "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast and give to the poor." Irrefutably, God is declaring here that man is morally obligated to live simply (avoiding vast material wealth) so ALL of his "flock" may avoid misery. And how did the Pope observe this fun Bible passage? Decide for yourself while enjoying these fine (free) photographs....


-Papal Palace in Vatican City


-Catholic kids living on a Sao Paulo dump.

Friends, I welcome all comments but, if doing so angrily, please point out specifically which assertions I got wrong. I am always eager to grow and learn. Thanks and God bless America.

-Paul C. Rosa

The Land Down Under

Let's go international, shall we?

Mexico. Land of a Thousand Sighs. The Sunshine Paradise. God's Baked Land of Love. It has long boasted many nicknames and evoked countless passions so I decided to visit this mysterious southern territory myself and file this report.

I visited Yelapa ("Enchanted Place of Great Natural Beauty and Inspiration"), situated a short boat ride from the tourist-infested city of Puerto Vallarta. A primitive town, Yelapa has only had electricity for seven years and features no roads whatsoever. Cell phone options? Forget it, Yankee! Internet? Internot! Paper and pen? You betcha' !



Nestled in an enchanted cove (no doubt many decades old), Yelapa features almost-constant sunshine, a gently breaking surf, handsome locals selling shiny artifacts, and primitive (but lovely) homes scattered throughout the surrounding hills. At the rear of many of these hovels, small family-run restaurants can be found. Delicious fish tacos, zesty chicken tortillas, ranches swerve-os (egg concoction). Heavenly! Margueritas, Daiquiris, Coronas. Sweet, tipsy refreshment.

And for the "losers" in Yelapan society? Mountains of marijuana and hash are exchanged as casually as tablets of Pez. Don't these primitive folks realize these are "gateway drugs?" I could clearly picture some of the stoned 60-year-olds eventually moving on to crystal meth or heroin. Only a matter of time. For shame.

Indeed it was the "Sunshine Paradise," but I must now dutifully report some other aspects of Yelapa which I found to be...lacking. Let me start with the way people speak. Despite easy access to english books written by such literary stars as Hemingway, Melville, and Jackie Collins, most of the citizens of Yelapa spoke jibberish! Often, when asking for directions or ordering a meal, I was forced to repeat myself again and again before being understood! As a professional writer and Level 9 English Orator (as recognized by the Brawdings Institute) I am comfortable in the notion that I communicated with great clarity. But time and time again, these tanned locals looked at me with great confusion and were unable to answer the most basic questions. How do they hope to compete with the United States (greatest country on earth) if their english is abyssmal?

And speaking of competition, I must address the restaurant "situation" in Mexico. Often, when sitting down at a beach restaurant, I was forced to wait up to ten minutes for any attention whatsoever! A casual fellow or gal would eventually amble over to my table and, after mispronouncing hello ("ola?!"), deliver a menu. In America, the menu is often already on the table and a waiter is prepared to take your order within minutes. American efficiency and excellence, my friends, form the bedrock of our global superiority and economic might. After another 10-15 minutes, the waiter (often wearing shorts and a T-shirt!) would take my order and another 20-30 minutes were squandered as I awaited my nutritious offering. Given there were no Blackberry or cell phone options, I was forced to gaze stupidly at the ocean during this time and, as Americans know, inefficient time is wasted time.

Finally, I was intensely uncomfortable to see many small, local children dashing about wearing sandals and little else. Typically, the little girls were topless and, as any good American Pastor will confirm, children should be taught Christian modesty as early as possible. As these sun-baked youngsters dashed about the village, giggling and holding hands, I could not help but believe that their parents were utterly failing them. Conformity is the key to success and undeveloped bosoms are bosoms nonetheless. I could only mourn the fact that many of these little girls would fall into lives of prostitution.

In conclusion, Mexico is the place to go if you want a warm, lazy vacation. But if excellence and efficiency are what gives you your "get up and go," might I suggest Las Vegas? And I would recommend, should you visit Mexico, that you bring a few dozen english books along as gifts for the locals.



Aufwiedersehen,
Paul C. Rosa